A delicate balance in Nepal

Nepal has had a chequered history of political struggle since 1950. The monarchy came to exercise total power by upstaging the democratic government of B.P. Koirala in 1960. The country was ruled by the Panchayat, with support from the monarchy, for the next 30 years. The winds of change, ushered in by developments such as the end of the Cold War inevitably impacted Nepal, leading to an open revolt against the king in 1990. The monarchy then accepted its constitutionally defined role and Nepal experienced multi-party democracy for the first time in its history.

What was clear, however, was that the two systems could not exist simultaneously. The monarchy in Nepal did not demonstrate the inclination to accept its constitutionally defined role, as is the case in countries like the UK and the Netherlands. Today its supporters and sympathisers are still alive and active, and it will be difficult to sideline them unless the contesting powers are strong or ready to take into consideration the interests of the monarchists as well. Nepal therefore remained besieged 8212; not only by political contestations but by frequent changes in governments, which led in turn to political instability, economic sluggishness and social disharmony. It was this transitory phase of democracy that gave rise to people8217;s discontentment, leading to an armed movement by the Maoists since 1996. In this scenario the king emerged as the only stable force 8212; party leaders often turning towards him for no-confidence motions or for the dissolution of the House. King Gyanendra dismissed Parliament in October 2002 on the advice of Sher Bahadur Deuba, after all.

With monarchy leaping on to the political turf, the conflict became three-pronged. It was the king8217;s capture of power that finally forced the various political parties to form the formidable alliance. Today they, along with the Maoists, are on the political centre stage, while the political, traditional and ceremonial authority of the king was completely undermined. Under the comprehensive peace treaty, the property of the late King Birendra and his family was placed under a trust and the property of King Gyanendra nationalised. The Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists have finalised a 167-article draft of the interim constitution, which has transferred all the powers of the head of state to the prime minister.

The new development in Nepal is welcome, but the process could still be fraught with serious risk, particularly if the elections are delayed. More critical is the monitoring of the two armies under effective UN supervision. The Maoists8217; quest to have their militia absorbed in the National Army would not be easy, especially given women and child recruits in the Maoist battalions.

Moreover, the comprehensive peace treaty could essentially prove to be a tactical adjustment rather than a permanent paradigm shift. Both the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists differ in their broader outlook. Their deal, by itself, is not likely to address immediate social discontentment. Moreover, various issues where there is a conflict of interest will start rearing their head. Control over the bureaucratic and electoral process as well as distribution of posts in the run-up to the Constituent Assembly elections are bound to create great social friction.

There8217;s also the question as to whether the Seven Party Alliance will remain united until the new constitution is put in place. The debate on the future role of the monarchy is also bound to be emotive. Unless the issue is settled, the political crisis in Nepal will not end. The peace process may make for optimism, but Nepal has a long way to go before it reaches a state of stability.

Thapliyal is a reader at the Centre for Strategic and Regional Studies, University of Jammu